First, a big shout out goes to Welsh Dragon for providing me with some great questions to ask Senator Beavers.

I won't say it was a waste of time to prepare for the show but I could have saved an hour or two. It was obvious after a question or two that Mae Beavers had not even read her own bill much less comprehend what was in it. She said she had submitted the bill because questions had arisen about Obama being eligible. She extended the bill to cover other offices because "we used to know everybody that was running; they were our neighbors." I am not sure what she meant. I said we know a lot about all the major candidates because people start digging into their past as soon as they become a serious candidate. We know more about them than we do our neighbors.

Sen. Beavers hasn't read much of the Constitution either. When I asked her about the Full Faith and Credit clause she drew a big blank. Georgetown questioned her on the requirement in the bill for 14 consecutive years of residency, which is not required by Article II, and again their was silence. Most astoundingly, she didn't even know that her own bill as written would prohibit the current President from being on the ballot in 2012 (based on the no multiple citizenship section). She didn't seem at all troubled by this conclusion since as she kept repeating, that's what committees do is fix things in bills.

Unfortunately, a birther named "Mike" called and recited the birther lies about needing to see the "long form" and the governor of Hawaii saying they had no birth certificate. While Georgetown was educating Mike Sen. Beavers departed. I was ready to move on to her health care bill but never made it to that subject. I plan to invite her to a future show to talk about her health care bill.

About which I suspect she will be equally uneducated. The proposal is chock full of vague generalities about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, employs bizarre terminology, and evidences that the author does not understand the enforcement/penalty mechanism of the ACA. Lots of fertile ground to plow.

All of which furthers my suspicion that there is someone in the background pulling the strings and supplying these jokers with templates.

Well DUH

As evidenced by the Beavers bombing on RC radio...She doesn't have the mental horsepower to write anything at all - and she submitted over 100 bills. What the hell could be wrong in TN that this moron has to submit 100 bills???

But but but that's what committees are for...(deliberately put forward schlocky crap hoping that someone or "someone" will straighten this cluster f*ck out who is just as clueless as her - She needs to be recalled ASAP

Sounds like a transcript and audio sent to targeted news outlets might be a good idea.

But you don't want any of them to be afraid of appearing. That would seriously degrade the entertainment value.

True, but we also have a responsibility to educate, do we not?

One of the problems though is that the folks who vote for her would vote for her whether she is the devil, satan, etc or not.

You can only educate the receptive.

We may reach their offspring.

And entertain a wider audience!

Ahh, the big tent idea...snicker...

It is like a 3 ring circus - when one ring is down, there's crap going on in Ring #2.

Blame it on the elephants!

It would be no problem for a legislator to direct a staffer to draft a birther bill, and then the said staffer merely copies another state's birther bill.

But you could actually draft a bill that would pass Constitutional muster, and that really wouldn't add anything to what is currently practiced. Lots of to-do about nada...

That's just it ... a bill that would pass Constitutional muster really wouldn't do anything different .. but it gives the RENJs the opportunity to spin ...

It makes them look like they are doing something, when in all actuality they are ripping off the public and ignoring the actual problems - like WHERE ARE THE FREAKING JOBS???

From what I have seen of the Missouri effort - they HAD a birfer bill, but found out that Missouri only issues a short form COLB - period...the crap about the original BC kinda hit them wrong...

I do believe they looked at the bill again and have pretty much decided it would be much more money and trouble than it is worth. It is hard to bankroll bankrupt ideas.

I'd suggest maybe sending something to Salon - possibly the War Room guys - they seem to like writing about stupid politicians, Dave Weigel, TPM, Crooks & Liars. I have an account at FDL and one of the editor's there has been a blog-friend of mine for a while; I wouldn't feel right asking her to promote it to the front page - and I certainly cannot promise anything - but did promoted one of other the three posts I've made (one about the agent provocateurs Mark Williams was trying to get to mess with the SEIU,) so there's at least a possibility it could get front paged. If you want to write anything up about it, just send it PM and I'll post it there (with appropriate credit, of course!)

I've been a bit remiss in keeping the Birther Bill Scorecard up to date but it is at the moment:

Birther Bills

We currently have live Bills in TX, GA,TN, MO, IN, NE an odd on in ME which would only apply to primaries an ME doesn't have presidential primaries.

As I understand it, the Maine bill isn't a birfer bill. The author has tried to distance himself from the birfer debate.



http://www.vitalchek.com/agency_info.as ... 8661&s=loc

One guy I know claims to have spoken to the author of the bill who stated that it is not directed at Obama.

You know, I think it is significant that the reps in all of these states are introducing bills that keep a specific person - President Obama - off the ballot, but where are the bills aimed specifically at persons like Roger Calero?

Where were the bills after his 2004 run for POTUS?

Oh, that's right, he's not Black...

It's an interesting irony, I think, that--after all the squawking and shrieking LSOS Sharon ("I am not a litigious person") Marooni has inflicted on Illinois regarding the various "proofs" (citizenship, residence, age) she believes should be required of candidates and open for public inspection--that no birther bill has been introduced in Illinois.

The Illinois General Assembly has been in session since early January, and will remain in session until sometime in May, although I think some of the deadlines for bill submission and for bills to clear committees, etc. may have passed or be coming up soon.

Very early on in her crusade, Marooni was told--quite clearly--that the place to pursue her "ballot eligibility" interests was in the Illinois General Assembly, not the courts. But Marooni didn't want to hear that, imagining that the courts were a shortcut which would bypass the state's legislature (Marooni was apparently absent from 6th grade social studies on the day they learned about the three branches of government (federal or state) and who MAKES law, as opposed to INTERPRETS or ENFORCES law).

And this would have been the year to make the change (since she has made it clear that she questions President Obama's eligibility). The 2012 Illinois presidential primary is scheduled for March 20, which falls pretty much in the middle of the 2012 Illinois General Assembly session dates. It's highly unlikely that any law passed in the 2012 General Assembly would effect the 2012 Illinois presidential primary (and the qualification of candidates to be on that ballot).

I have to admit that I'm a little bit surprised that Marooni couldn't find even ONE RWNJ Illinois legislator to introduce some sort of eligibility bill this year. Perhaps--even likely--she didn't bother to try. Or perhaps she was simply rebuffed.

Someone please tell me if I'm mistaken (like you wouldn't), but isn't all this hoo-haa over these eligibility bills just a ... well ...hoo-haa?

My impression from reading all of what you've written is that states are compelled by the full faith and credit clause to accept any official document from any other state. So it really doesn't matter how they enumerate what they want on the birth certificates -- and the birth certificates really are the crux of most of them -- if a state issues a BC that says, "Examiner was born here, so deal with it," they have to accept it.

Am I correct in my thinking, or am I all wet?

That is the way I understand it. The problem is that a law passed by the legislative body and signed/approved by the executive is considered by default "Constitutional". Someone has to object by filing suit to block enforcement and to challenge the constitutionality of the new law. It is up to the Judiciary to "judge" the law vs the US Constitution. Many state legislatures find passing stupid crap like these Birfer Bills will only cost them time and money litigating these abortions of the American experience. Governments get to spend more of YOUR TAX MONEY going to court over defending the unmitigated hate and blatant Anti-Americanism that permeates these measures.
Wheeeee - no offense to our brilliant legal staff here and the only folks that win here are the lawyers.